Panel Session on Data for Modeling System Transients

Insulated Cables
Bjrn Gustavsen
SINTEF Energy Research
N-7465 Trondheim, Norway
bjorn.gustavsen@energy.sintef.no

Abstract: The available EMTP-type programs have dedicated

support routines (Cable Constants) for calculating an electric
representation of cable systems in terms of a series
impedance matrix Z and a shunt admittance matrix Y, based
on cable data defined by geometry and material properties. Z
and Y are then used as the basic input for the various cable
models applied in time domain transient simulations. This
paper describes necessary procedures for converting the
available cable data into a new set of data which can be used
as input for Cable Constants. In particular, the paper shows
how to handle the semiconducting screens of single core
coaxial type cables. In situations where the cable plays an
important role in the transient simulation, the user should
also consider obtaining a specimen of the cable in order to
verify the geometrical data provided by the manufacturer. The
recommendations in this paper are supported by field test
results.

Keywords: Electromagnetic
Modeling, EMTP.

Transients,

Insulated

The situation is made further complicated by the fact that the

nominal thickness of the various layers (insulation, semiconducting
screens) as stated by manufacturers can be smaller than the actual
(design) thickness of the layers. Therefore, the information on
geometrical data from the manufacturer can be inaccurate from the
viewpoint of cable parameter calculations.
This paper demonstrates the needed conversions for one real case
of a single core coaxial cable system, and proposes how to best use the
available data to produce a reliable cable model. The effect of inaccurate
data on a time domain simulation is also shown. The paper further
discusses the shortcoming of CC in taking into account possible
attenuation effects caused by the semiconducting screens.
II. CABLE PARAMETERS

Cables,

The basic parameters used by transmission line/cable models are the

following:

I. INTRODUCTION
The modeling of insulated cables for the simulation of electromagnetic
transients requires
1) Calculation of cable parameters from geometrical data and material
properties [1],[2].
2) Conversion of the cable parameters into a new set of parameters
for usage by the transmission line/cable model.

Z () = R() + jL ()

(1)

Y () = G () + jC()

(2)

where R,L,G,C are the series resistance, series inductance, shunt

conductance and shunt capacitance per unit length of the cable system.
These quantities are n by n matrices where n is the number of
(parallel) conductors of the cable system. The variable reflects that
these quantities are calculated as function of frequency. Z and Y are
calculated using CC based on the geometry and material properties of
the system [1],[2].

This paper deals with the first step in the procedure, namely the
calculation of cable parameters. All the commonly used programs for
simulation of electromagnetic transients (EMTP/ATP/EMTDC) have
dedicated support routines for this task. The routine(s) have very
similar features and will in this presentation be given the common
generic name Cable Constants (CC).
Data conversion is often needed by the user in order to bring the
available cable data into a form which can be used as input by CC. This
conversion is needed because
1) The data can have alternative representations with CC only
supporting one of the representations.
2) The CC routine does not consider certain cable features, such as
semiconducting screens and wire screens.

III. ACTUAL CABLE VS. CABLE CONSTANTS

REPRESENTATION
A. Geometry
In the following we consider CC applied to systems of parallel single
core coaxial type cables (SC cables). The user must specify the
following input data:
The location of each cable (x-y coordinates).
The geometry of each SC cable.
In general, CC represents each SC cable by a set of concentrically
located homogenous pipes, separated by insulating layers. Figure 1
shows the representation which would be used for a SC cable without
armour.

cables. This means that CC assumes a cylindrically symmetrical

current distribution in all conductors. The assumed cylindrical
distribution also means that the helical winding effect of the wire
screen is not taken into account.

air

soil

g , g

IV. MODELING REQUIREMENTS VS. PHENOMENON

Insulation

For situations with straight sheaths (i.e. no crossbondings), high

frequency transients propagate mainly as uncoupled coaxial waves
within each SC cable. The earth characteristics have in this situation
only a mild effect on the resulting phase voltages and phase currents.
In the following we shall therefore focus on the representation of the
cable within the protective jacket (oversheath).

r4
r3
c, c

core
sheath

r1

r2

1
s , s

V. CONVERSION PROCEDURES
A. Core

Fig. 1 CC representation of system of 3 SC cables

The CC-routine requires the core data to be given by the resistivity c

and the radius r1. However, the core conductor is often of the stranded
design (Figure 2), whereas CC assumes a homogenous (solid)
conductor. This makes it necessary to increase the resistivity c of
the core material to take into account the space between strands:

Figure 2 shows an actual XLPE single core coaxial cable. Clearly,

this cable design is different from the simple configuration assumed in
Figure 1. In particular, the user needs to decide how to represent
The core stranding
The inner semiconducting screen
The outer semiconducting screen
The wire screen (sheath)

c = c

r12
Ac

(5)

where Ac is the efficient (nominal) cross sectional area of the core. The
resistivity c for to be used for annealed copper and hard drawn
aluminum at 20C is according to IEC 28 and IEC 889:
Copper:
1.7241E-8 m
Aluminum
2.8264E-8 m

Inner semiconductor
Outer semiconductor
Wire screen

If the manufacturer provides the DC resistance for the core, the

sought resistivity can alternatively be calculated as
r 2
c = R DC 1
(6)
l

Core
Insulation

B. Insulation and semiconducting screens

Procedure
The semiconducting screens can have a substantial effect on the
propagation characteristics of a cable in terms of velocity, surge
impedance and possibly the attenuation [3],[4]. Unfortunately, CC
does not allow explicit representation of the semiconducting screens,
so an approximate data conversion procedure must be applied :

Fig. 2 SC XLPE cable

B. Material properties
The user must specify the following material constants:
The soil resistivity and relative permeability
g , g
The core resistivity and relative permeability
c , c
The sheath resistivity and relative permeability
s , s
The insulation relative permittivity
r
(In non-magnetic materials the relative permeability equals 1.0.)

1) Calculate r2 as r1 plus the sum of the thickness of the

semiconducting screens and the main insulation.
2) Calculate the relative permittivity r1 as
r1 =

The CC-routine assumes the relative permittivity r of each insulating

layer to be real ( = 0 ) and frequency independent, thereby
neglecting any relaxation phenomena in the insulation. This implies :
Z () = R() + jL ()
(3)
Y () = jC

C ln(r2 / r1 )
2 0

(7)

where C is the cable capacitance stated by the manufacturer and

0 = 8.854E-12. If C is unknown, r1 can instead be calculated based on
the relative permittivity rins of the main insulation:

(4)

r1 = r ins

C. Eddy current effects

ln(r2 / r1 )
ln(b / a )

(8)

where a and b are the insulation inner and outer radius, respectively.
For XLPE rins equals 2.3.

The CC-routine takes into account the frequency dependent skin effect
in the conductors, but neglects the proximity effect between parallel
2

Justification
The inner and outer semiconducting screens have a relative permittivity
of the order of 1000, due to the high carbon content used in the
semiconducting screens. This implies that the capacitance of the
screens is much higher than that of the insulation and will tend to act as
a short circuit when calculating the shunt admittance between core and
sheath. A similar effect is caused by the ohmic conductivity of the
semiconducting screens, which is required by norm to be higher than
1E-3 S/m.
At the same time the conductivity of the semiconducting screens is
much lower than that of the core and the sheath conductors, implying
that the semiconducting screens do not contribute to the longitudinal
current conduction.
This implies that when entering the geometrical data in CC, the
user should let the XPLE insulation extend to the surface of the core
conductor and the sheath conductor, and increase the relative
permittivity to leave the capacitance unaltered. Note that this modeling
neglects the possible attenuation caused by the semiconducting
screens. The attenuation could have a strong impact on very high
frequency transients. This is discussed in Section X.

With a relative permittivity of 2.3 for XLPE, this defines a

capacitance of 0.244 nF/m which is in agreement with the capacitance
of 0.24 nF/m stated by the manufacturer.
C. Data conversion
Core
From the manufacturer:
r1 = 19 .5 mm
The resistivity is calculated by (6) :

c = 3. 4643 10 8 /m
Insulation and insulation screens
r2 = r1 + (0 .8 + 14 + 0. 4) = 34 .7 mm
r 1 = 2 .486 (by (7))
Wire screen
The outer radius is calculated using (9):
r3 = 34 . 93 mm
s = 1 .718 E 8 /m (copper)

C. Wire screen

VII. INACCURACY IN DATA FROM MANUFACTURER

When the sheath conductor consists of a wire screen, the most

practical procedure is to replace the screen with a tubular conductor
having a cross sectional area equal to the total wire area As. With an
inner sheath radius of r2, the outer radius r3 becomes
r3 =

As
+ r22

The relevant cable norms (e.g. IEC 840, IEC 60502) puts limitations on
the minimum thickness of each cable layer (in relation to the nominal
thickness), but not on the maximum thickness. Therefore, the
manufacturer is free to use thicker layers than the nominal ones, e.g. to
account for dispersity in production and ageig effects. This situation is
prevalent for both the main insulation, the oversheath, and the
semiconducting screens.
By measurement on a specimen of the 66 kV cable it was found
that the insulation and in particular the semiconducting screens were
thicker than stated in the data sheets :
Thickness of inner insulation screen: 1.5 mm

(9)

VI. APPLICATION TO 66 kV CABLE

A. Manufacturers data
The procedures outlined in the previous sections will be demonstrated
for a 66 kV cable similar to the one shown in Figure 3. For this cable
(manufactured in the 1980s), the following data were provided by the
manufacturer:

Thickness of insulation: 14.7 mm

Thickness of outer insulation screen: 1.1 mm
Separation between outer insulation screen and centre of
each conductor in wire screen: 1 mm

Ac = 1000 mm2
C = 0 .24 nF/m
R DC = 2 .9 E 5 /m

This gives a modified model :

r1 = 19 .5 mm

r1 = 19 .5 mm
Thickness of inner insulation screen: 0.8 mm

r2 = 37 .8 mm

Thickness of insulation: 14 mm

r 2 = 2. 856 (by (7))

Thickness of outer insulation screen: 0.4 mm

Wire screen: As = 50 mm2
B. Data consistency
In Section VB it was justified that the insulation screens can be
represented by short circuit when calculating the shunt admittance.
This is equivalent to a capacitance between two cylindrical shells with
radius :
a = (19 .5 + 0 .8 ) mm = 20 .3 mm
b = a + 14 mm = 34 .3 mm
C=

2 0 r
ln(b / a )

(10)
3

VIII. SENSITIVITY

the surge admittance of the cable core-sheath loop, which is the inverse
of the surge impedance.
The inrush current was also simulated using EMTDC v3 with a
phase domain cable model [5],[6]. The CC routine was applied for the
three different cases defined in Section VIII. It is seen that using the
cable representation in case #3 gives a calculated response which is in
fairly close agreement with the measured response. The two other
representations have a much larger discrepancy. (The spike occurring
at about 50 s resulted because of long leads connecting the two cable
sections).

At high frequencies, the asymptotic (lossless) propagation velocity

and surge impedance are given as
v = 1 / L 0C

(11)

Zc =

L0 / C

(12)

ln(r2 / r1 )

(13)

where
L0 =

0
2

with 0 = 4 E 7
We will now compare the asymptotic propagation characteristics
as calculated by the following procedures:
Case #1:
Neglecting the semiconducting screens. Capacitance and inductance
calculated using (10) and (13) with a=r1=19.5 mm, b=r2=33.5 mm, and
r1=2.3.
Case #2:
Taking the semiconducting screens into account. Capacitance and
geometrical data from the manufacturer: r1=19.5 mm, r2=34.7 mm, and
r1=2.486.
Case #3:
Taking the semiconducting screens into account. Capacitance from the
manufacturer, geometrical data from cable specimen: r1=19.5 mm,
r2=37.8 mm, and r1=2.856.
Using the inductance calculated from (12), the velocity and
characteristic impedance are calculated as:

Fig. 4 Measured and simulated inrush current

X. IMPROVED MODELING OF SEMICONDUCTING
SCREENS

Table 1. Sensitivity of cable propagation characteristics

case #1

case #2

case #3

v [m/s]

197.7

190.1 (-3.8%)

177.4 (-10.3%))

Zc []

21.39

21.91 (+2.4%)

23.49 (+9.8%)

Reference [3] suggests to model the admittance between the core and
the sheath using the circuit in Figure 5, in which each semiconducting
screen is modeled by a conductance in parallel with a capacitor. With
component values obtained from measurements, they obtained a good
agreement between measured attenuation and calculated attenuation in
the range 1 MHz125 MHz. The attenuation effect of the
semiconducting screens was strong.
Reference [4] gives a systematic investigation of the effects of
semiconducting screens on propagation characteristics.

Thus, the cable propagation characteristics are highly sensitive to

the representation of the core-sheath layers.
IX. FIELD TEST AND TIME DOMAIN SIMULATION
A field test was carried out on a 6.05 km length of the cable. One core
conductor was charged up to a 5 kV DC voltage and then shorted to
ground. Thus, a negative step voltage was in effect applied to the cable
end (see Figure 3).
3.85 km
core
sheath

core

2.2 km

G1

15 m
Y

Negative
step voltage

C1

Main insulation

C
G2

Inner semiconducting screen

C2

Outer semiconducting screen

sheath

Fig. 5 Improved model of insulation screens [3]

Fig. 3 Cable test setup
The conductivity and permittivity of the semiconducting screens
depends very much on the amount of carbon added, the structure of

Figure 4 shows the measured initial inrush current flowing into the core
conductor in p.u. of the DC-voltage. The initial current corresponds to
4

XI. DISCUSSION

the carbon, and the type of base polymer. Very high carbon
concentrations are used (e.g. 35%). IEC 840 requires the resistivity to
be lower than 1000 m for the inner screen, and below 500 m for
the outer screen. One manufacturer stated that they use a much lower
resistivity, typically 0.1 m10 m. The relative permittivity is
very high, typically of the order of 1000. The permittivity and
conductivity can be strongly frequency dependent.
In order to investigate the possible attenuation effects of the
insulation screens of the cable considered in this paper, a
representation as in Figure 5 was employed assuming frequency
independent conductances and capacitances. The component values
were calculated as follows:
C = 0. 24 nF / m (from manufacturer)
C1 = 20 r / ln(r2 / b)
C 2 = 2 0 r / ln(a / r1 )
G1 = 2 / ln(r2 / b )
G 2 = 2 / ln(a / r1 )
where
a:
b:
r :
:

This paper has focused on the importance of correctly modeling the

semiconducting screens of single core coaxial type cables. It is shown
that a careless modeling tends to produce a model with a too low surge
impedance and a too high propagation velocity. The importance of
accurate modeling is strongly dependent on the type of transient
study. If the cable is part of a resonant overvoltage phenomenon, the
accurate representation of the cable the surge impedance and
propagation velocity is crucial.
XII. CONCLUSIONS
This paper describes necessary conversion procedures for the available
cable data for usage by Cable Constantstype routines (CC), with
focus on single core (SC) coaxial type cables. The main conclusions are
the following:

Outer radius of inner semiconducting screen

Inner radius of outer semiconducting screen
Relative permittivity of semiconducting screens
Conductivity of semiconducting screens

Figure 6 shows the attenuation per km, for a few combinations of

and r. The curves define to which peak value a sinusoidal voltage of
1 p.u. peak value decays to over a distance of 1 km. (The signal decays
exponentially as function of length). The model predicts a significant
contribution from the semiconducting screens for a low value of both
the relative permittivity (10, 100) and the conductivity (0.001). With
the high permittivity (1000), the capacitance tends to short out the
conductance, and no appreciable increase of the attenuation is seen.
The lowest value for the permittivity (10) is probably unrealistic.

CC does not directly apply to SC cables with semiconducting

screens, so a conversion procedure is needed before entering the
cable data into CC. This paper describes the needed conversions
and also describes the conversions needed for handling the core
stranding and wire screens.

The nominal thickness of the various insulation and

semiconducting cable screens as stated by manufacturers can be
smaller than those found in actual cables. This can result in a
significant error for the propagation characteristics of the cable
model.

CC has no means for taking into account any additional attenuation

at very high frequencies resulting from the semiconducting screens.
XIII. REFERENCES

[1] L.M. Wedepohl and D.J. Wilcox, Transient Analysis of

Underground Power Transmission System ; System-Model and
Wave Propagation Characteristics, Proc. IEE, vol. 120, No. 2,
February 1973, pp. 252-259.
[2] A. Ametani, A General Formulation of Impedance and
Admittance of Cables, IEEE Trans. PAS, Vol. 99, No. 3,
May/June 1980, pp. 902-909.
[3] G.C. Stone and S.A. Boggs, "Propagation of Partial Discharge
Pulses in Shielded Power Cable, Proceedings of Conference on
Electrical Insulation and Dielectric Phenomena, IEEE 82CH17731, October 1982, pp. 275-280.
[4] W.L. Weeks and Yi Min Diao, Wave Propagation in
Underground Power Cable, IEEE Trans. PAS, Vol. 103, No. 10,
October 1984, pp. 2816-2826.
[5] A. Morched, B. Gustavsen, and M. Tartibi, A Universal Line
Model for Accurate Calculation of Electromagnetic Transients on
Overhead Lines and Cables, IEEE trans. PWRD, vol. 14, no. 3,
July 1999, pp. 1032-1038.
[6] B.Gustavsen, G. Irwin, R. Mangelrd, D. Brandt, and K. Kent,
"Transmission Line Models for the Simulation of Interaction
Phenomena between Parallel AC and DC Overhead Lines",
IPST'99 International Conference on Power System Transients,
Budapest, 1999, pp. 61-67.

Fig. 6 Effect of semiconducting screens on attenuation

Bjrn Gustavsen was born in Norway in 1965. He received the

M.Sc. degree in 1989 and the Dr.-Ing. degree in 1993, both from the

XIV. BIOGRAPHY
5

Norwegian Institute of Technology in Trondheim. Since 1994 he

has been working at SINTEF Energy Research (former EFI). His
interests include simulation of electromagnetic transients and
modeling of frequency dependent effects. He spent 1996 as a
Visiting Researcher at the University of Toronto, and the summer
of 1998 at the Manitoba HVDC Research Centre, Winnipeg,
Canada.

APPENDIX DATA CONVERSION

The following Matlab code does the recommended data conversion
for the case described in Section VI. All geometrical quantities are in
meters.

INPUT:
C
=0.24e-9;
Acore =1000e-6;
Asheath=50e-6;
tins
=14e-3;
tins1 =0.8e-3;
tins2 =0.4e-3;
r1
=19.5e-3;
RDC
=2.9e-5;
eps0
=8.854e-12;

%capacitance stated by manufacturer [F/m]

%core nominal cross sectional area
%sheath nominal cros sectional area
%thickness: main insulation
%thickness: inner insulation screen
%thickness: outer insulation screen
%core radius
%core DC resistance [ohm/m]
%vacuum permittivity

OUTPUT:
rhoc=RDC*pi*r1^2
r2=r1+tins1+tins+tins2;
r3=sqrt(Asheath/pi+r2^2);
epsr1=C*log(r2/r1)/(2*pi*eps0);

%core resistivity
%sheath inner radius
%sheath outer radius
%effective rel. permittivity
%of core sheath layer